From wendy  Mon Jun  4 13:55:52 2012
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:55:52 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7
In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB42@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB42@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <4FCC9438.4010701@seltzer.com>

I'll be at a workshop during at least the first half of Thursday's
Council meeting.  Can anyone take my proxy?

I'd vote against Zahid's "Best Practices" motion (really, two drafting
teams is excessive), and am indifferent to the second so long as it's
only a "recommends."

--Wendy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda 7 June 2012
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:02:06 -0700
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>

Dear All,

Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June 2012
which is also posted on the Wiki at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+2012
This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
For convenience:

 *   An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
 *   An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this
agenda.
Meeting Times 20:00
UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2
Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris; 05:00
Tokyo next day
Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
GNSO Council meeting audiocast
http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
1.1 Roll Call
1.2 Statement of interest updates
1.3 Review/amend agenda
1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the
GNSO Operating Procedures:
Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 10 May 2012 approved on 28 May
2012.
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.htm


1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf

 *   Review main changes.
 *   Comments and/or questions.
Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)
A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to
provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific
tasks.

2.1 GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) &
Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. Approve sending of note to GAC.

Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes)

Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP)
Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the
creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries
address the abusive registrations of domain names.

The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one
to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose
candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain
names.

The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to
create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from the
May 10, 2012 meeting.

Refer to motion 1
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012


3.1   Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)

3.2   Discussion
3.3   Vote


Item 4: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes)

The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent
agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting.

At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end
this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of
the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that
constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path
forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings.

A motion has been made to consider next steps.
Refer to motion 2
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012
4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
4.2 Discussion
4.3 Vote


Item 5: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes)

The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an OTF.
A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar
meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting and
was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica, the
Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to proceed.

This is an update item on the work of that group.


5.1   Update from (X Y)

5.2   Discussion
5.3   Next steps



Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes)

The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for
information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform
its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2).

The drafting team submitted its
report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>
to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report
to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council
decided to put the report out for public comment.

A public comment forum was opened (see
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21mar12-en.htm)
and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next steps.
6.1   Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings)
Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal
Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-notices-report-15may12-en.pdf>

6.2   Discussion
6.3   Next steps


Item 7: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes)


To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on
Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance
Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations
and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen
in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might
be desirable but not foreseen at this stage.

The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its
report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf>
on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12
April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP WG
Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809).

The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any.

7.1 Discussion
7.2 Next steps



Item 8: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee
on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes)
This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG
so that next steps for the group can be determined.

This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt was
unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was needed
on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the Council
during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful to
get responses from Kurt to them.

8.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt Pritz)
8.2 Discussion
8.3 Next steps




Item 9: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data (IRD) Working
Group (WG) (10 minutes)

The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March
3, 2012 for review and approval.

However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may
now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered.

This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in
the IRD WG's work to the Council.

9.1 WG update from
Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slides-10may12-en.pdf>
(Steve Sheng)
9.2 Discussion


Item 10: UDRP Domain Locking WG (5 minutes)
As per the GNSO WG Guidelines, the Chairs of a WG need to be confirmed
by the GNSO Council.

The Council may wish to note that Michele Neylon (Proposed Chair) and
Alan Greenberg (Proposed Vice-Chair) were selected with unanimous
support from the Working Group.

10.1 WG update from Staff (Marika Konings)
10.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC.



Item 11: Consumer Metrics WG (5 minutes)
The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for
discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending it
to the Council.


As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's input. A
letter
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdf
has been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair.

The Council must decide whether to send that letter.

11.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair)
11.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter.


Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
Section 3)
9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the
GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council
motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each
House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the
following GNSO actions:
a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than
one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
described in Annex
A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an
affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO
Supermajority.
d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an
affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment
to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant
cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor
of termination.
h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires
an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires
that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4
Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a
two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a
consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
exceeded.
k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval
by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House
and a majority of the other House."
Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>)

4.4.1 Applicability
Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council
motions or measures.
a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN
Bylaws;
d. Fill a Council position open for election.
4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the
vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7
calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
Vice-Chairs present.
4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could
include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other
technologies as may become available.
4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
California, USA
(PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>)
UTC-8+1DST 13:00
New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 ? next day Buenos
Aires, Argentina
(ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>)
UTC-3+0DST 17:00
Montevideo, Uruguay
(UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>)
UTC-3+0DST 17:00
London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00
Abuja,Nigeria
(WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>)
UTC+1+0DST 21:00
Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
Ramat Hasharon,
Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html>)
UTC+2+0DST 23:00
Karachi, Pakistan
(PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>
) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 ? next day
Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 ? next day
Tokyo, Japan
(JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>)
UTC+9+0DST 05:00 ? next day
Wellington, New Zealand
(NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>
) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 ? next day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local
time (with exceptions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Glen


Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
http://gnso.icann.org




From william.drake  Mon Jun  4 18:17:16 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:17:16 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7
In-Reply-To: <4FCC9438.4010701@seltzer.com>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB42@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<4FCC9438.4010701@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <000BC188-C8A4-4394-87DB-9961581E13E5@uzh.ch>

Happy to proxy if you'd like.

B 

On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I'll be at a workshop during at least the first half of Thursday's
> Council meeting.  Can anyone take my proxy?
> 
> I'd vote against Zahid's "Best Practices" motion (really, two drafting
> teams is excessive), and am indifferent to the second so long as it's
> only a "recommends."
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda 7 June 2012
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:02:06 -0700
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June 2012
> which is also posted on the Wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+2012
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
> For convenience:
> 
> *   An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> *   An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this
> agenda.
> Meeting Times 20:00
> UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2
> Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
> 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris; 05:00
> Tokyo next day
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
> should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the
> GNSO Operating Procedures:
> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 10 May 2012 approved on 28 May
> 2012.
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.htm
> 
> 
> 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
> 
> *   Review main changes.
> *   Comments and/or questions.
> Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)
> A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to
> provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific
> tasks.
> 
> 2.1 GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) &
> Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. Approve sending of note to GAC.
> 
> Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes)
> 
> Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP)
> Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the
> creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries
> address the abusive registrations of domain names.
> 
> The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one
> to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose
> candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain
> names.
> 
> The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to
> create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from the
> May 10, 2012 meeting.
> 
> Refer to motion 1
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012
> 
> 
> 3.1   Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)
> 
> 3.2   Discussion
> 3.3   Vote
> 
> 
> Item 4: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes)
> 
> The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent
> agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting.
> 
> At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end
> this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of
> the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that
> constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path
> forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings.
> 
> A motion has been made to consider next steps.
> Refer to motion 2
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion
> 4.3 Vote
> 
> 
> Item 5: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes)
> 
> The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an OTF.
> A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar
> meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting and
> was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica, the
> Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to proceed.
> 
> This is an update item on the work of that group.
> 
> 
> 5.1   Update from (X Y)
> 
> 5.2   Discussion
> 5.3   Next steps
> 
> 
> 
> Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes)
> 
> The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for
> information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform
> its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2).
> 
> The drafting team submitted its
> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>
> to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report
> to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council
> decided to put the report out for public comment.
> 
> A public comment forum was opened (see
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21mar12-en.htm)
> and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next steps.
> 6.1   Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings)
> Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal
> Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-notices-report-15may12-en.pdf>
> 
> 6.2   Discussion
> 6.3   Next steps
> 
> 
> Item 7: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes)
> 
> 
> To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on
> Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance
> Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations
> and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen
> in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might
> be desirable but not foreseen at this stage.
> 
> The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its
> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf>
> on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12
> April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP WG
> Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809).
> 
> The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any.
> 
> 7.1 Discussion
> 7.2 Next steps
> 
> 
> 
> Item 8: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee
> on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes)
> This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG
> so that next steps for the group can be determined.
> 
> This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt was
> unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was needed
> on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the Council
> during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful to
> get responses from Kurt to them.
> 
> 8.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt Pritz)
> 8.2 Discussion
> 8.3 Next steps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Item 9: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data (IRD) Working
> Group (WG) (10 minutes)
> 
> The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March
> 3, 2012 for review and approval.
> 
> However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may
> now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered.
> 
> This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in
> the IRD WG's work to the Council.
> 
> 9.1 WG update from
> Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slides-10may12-en.pdf>
> (Steve Sheng)
> 9.2 Discussion
> 
> 
> Item 10: UDRP Domain Locking WG (5 minutes)
> As per the GNSO WG Guidelines, the Chairs of a WG need to be confirmed
> by the GNSO Council.
> 
> The Council may wish to note that Michele Neylon (Proposed Chair) and
> Alan Greenberg (Proposed Vice-Chair) were selected with unanimous
> support from the Working Group.
> 
> 10.1 WG update from Staff (Marika Konings)
> 10.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC.
> 
> 
> 
> Item 11: Consumer Metrics WG (5 minutes)
> The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for
> discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending it
> to the Council.
> 
> 
> As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's input. A
> letter
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdf
> has been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair.
> 
> The Council must decide whether to send that letter.
> 
> 11.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair)
> 11.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter.
> 
> 
> Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
> Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the
> GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council
> motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each
> House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the
> following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than
> one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
> described in Annex
> A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO
> Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment
> to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant
> cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor
> of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires
> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires
> that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4
> Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a
> two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a
> consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
> exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval
> by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House
> and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
> 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>)
> 
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council
> motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN
> Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
> adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the
> vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7
> calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
> Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could
> include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other
> technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA
> (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>)
> UTC-8+1DST 13:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 ? next day Buenos
> Aires, Argentina
> (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay
> (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00
> Abuja,Nigeria
> (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>)
> UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Ramat Hasharon,
> Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html>)
> UTC+2+0DST 23:00
> Karachi, Pakistan
> (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>
> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 ? next day
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 ? next day
> Tokyo, Japan
> (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>)
> UTC+9+0DST 05:00 ? next day
> Wellington, New Zealand
> (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>
> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 ? next day
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local
> time (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> 
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Mon Jun  4 19:04:54 2012
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:04:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB42@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<4FCC9438.4010701@seltzer.com>
	<000BC188-C8A4-4394-87DB-9961581E13E5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE2D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I have a similar problem. I am in a meeting the whole thursday and can not join. I share Wendys approach.
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 04.06.2012 17:17
An: Wendy Seltzer
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7



Happy to proxy if you'd like.

B

On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I'll be at a workshop during at least the first half of Thursday's
> Council meeting.  Can anyone take my proxy?
>
> I'd vote against Zahid's "Best Practices" motion (really, two drafting
> teams is excessive), and am indifferent to the second so long as it's
> only a "recommends."
>
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda 7 June 2012
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:02:06 -0700
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June 2012
> which is also posted on the Wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+2012
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
> For convenience:
>
> *   An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> *   An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this
> agenda.
> Meeting Times 20:00
> UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2
> Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
> 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris; 05:00
> Tokyo next day
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
> should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the
> GNSO Operating Procedures:
> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 10 May 2012 approved on 28 May
> 2012.
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.htm
>
>
> 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
>
> *   Review main changes.
> *   Comments and/or questions.
> Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)
> A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to
> provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific
> tasks.
>
> 2.1 GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) &
> Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. Approve sending of note to GAC.
>
> Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes)
>
> Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP)
> Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the
> creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries
> address the abusive registrations of domain names.
>
> The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one
> to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose
> candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain
> names.
>
> The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to
> create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from the
> May 10, 2012 meeting.
>
> Refer to motion 1
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012
>
>
> 3.1   Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)
>
> 3.2   Discussion
> 3.3   Vote
>
>
> Item 4: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes)
>
> The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent
> agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting.
>
> At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end
> this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of
> the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that
> constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path
> forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings.
>
> A motion has been made to consider next steps.
> Refer to motion 2
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion
> 4.3 Vote
>
>
> Item 5: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes)
>
> The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an OTF.
> A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar
> meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting and
> was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica, the
> Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to proceed.
>
> This is an update item on the work of that group.
>
>
> 5.1   Update from (X Y)
>
> 5.2   Discussion
> 5.3   Next steps
>
>
>
> Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes)
>
> The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for
> information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform
> its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2).
>
> The drafting team submitted its
> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>
> to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report
> to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council
> decided to put the report out for public comment.
>
> A public comment forum was opened (see
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21mar12-en.htm)
> and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next steps.
> 6.1   Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings)
> Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal
> Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-notices-report-15may12-en.pdf>
>
> 6.2   Discussion
> 6.3   Next steps
>
>
> Item 7: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes)
>
>
> To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on
> Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance
> Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations
> and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen
> in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might
> be desirable but not foreseen at this stage.
>
> The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its
> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf>
> on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12
> April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP WG
> Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809).
>
> The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any.
>
> 7.1 Discussion
> 7.2 Next steps
>
>
>
> Item 8: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee
> on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes)
> This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG
> so that next steps for the group can be determined.
>
> This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt was
> unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was needed
> on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the Council
> during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful to
> get responses from Kurt to them.
>
> 8.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt Pritz)
> 8.2 Discussion
> 8.3 Next steps
>
>
>
>
> Item 9: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data (IRD) Working
> Group (WG) (10 minutes)
>
> The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March
> 3, 2012 for review and approval.
>
> However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may
> now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered.
>
> This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in
> the IRD WG's work to the Council.
>
> 9.1 WG update from
> Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slides-10may12-en.pdf>
> (Steve Sheng)
> 9.2 Discussion
>
>
> Item 10: UDRP Domain Locking WG (5 minutes)
> As per the GNSO WG Guidelines, the Chairs of a WG need to be confirmed
> by the GNSO Council.
>
> The Council may wish to note that Michele Neylon (Proposed Chair) and
> Alan Greenberg (Proposed Vice-Chair) were selected with unanimous
> support from the Working Group.
>
> 10.1 WG update from Staff (Marika Konings)
> 10.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC.
>
>
>
> Item 11: Consumer Metrics WG (5 minutes)
> The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for
> discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending it
> to the Council.
>
>
> As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's input. A
> letter
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdf
> has been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair.
>
> The Council must decide whether to send that letter.
>
> 11.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair)
> 11.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter.
>
>
> Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
> Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the
> GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council
> motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each
> House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the
> following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than
> one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
> described in Annex
> A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO
> Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment
> to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant
> cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor
> of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires
> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires
> that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4
> Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a
> two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a
> consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
> exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval
> by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House
> and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
> 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>)
>
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council
> motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN
> Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
> adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the
> vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7
> calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
> Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could
> include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other
> technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA
> (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>)
> UTC-8+1DST 13:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 - next day Buenos
> Aires, Argentina
> (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay
> (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00
> Abuja,Nigeria
> (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>)
> UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Ramat Hasharon,
> Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html>)
> UTC+2+0DST 23:00
> Karachi, Pakistan
> (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>
> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 - next day
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 - next day
> Tokyo, Japan
> (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>)
> UTC+9+0DST 05:00 - next day
> Wellington, New Zealand
> (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>
> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 - next day
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local
> time (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg





From wendy  Mon Jun  4 19:07:46 2012
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:07:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7
In-Reply-To: <000BC188-C8A4-4394-87DB-9961581E13E5@uzh.ch>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB42@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<4FCC9438.4010701@seltzer.com>
	<000BC188-C8A4-4394-87DB-9961581E13E5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4FCCDD52.6070904@seltzer.com>

On 06/04/2012 11:17 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Happy to proxy if you'd like.

Thanks, Bill!

--Wendy
> 
> B 
> 
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> 
>> I'll be at a workshop during at least the first half of Thursday's
>> Council meeting.  Can anyone take my proxy?
>>
>> I'd vote against Zahid's "Best Practices" motion (really, two drafting
>> teams is excessive), and am indifferent to the second so long as it's
>> only a "recommends."
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda 7 June 2012
>> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:02:06 -0700
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June 2012
>> which is also posted on the Wiki at:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+2012
>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
>> Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
>> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
>> For convenience:
>>
>> *   An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
>> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
>> *   An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
>> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this
>> agenda.
>> Meeting Times 20:00
>> UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2>
>> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2
>> Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
>> 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris; 05:00
>> Tokyo next day
>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
>> should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
>> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
>> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
>> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
>> 1.1 Roll Call
>> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
>> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
>> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the
>> GNSO Operating Procedures:
>> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 10 May 2012 approved on 28 May
>> 2012.
>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.htm
>>
>>
>> 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
>>
>> *   Review main changes.
>> *   Comments and/or questions.
>> Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)
>> A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to
>> provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific
>> tasks.
>>
>> 2.1 GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) &
>> Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. Approve sending of note to GAC.
>>
>> Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes)
>>
>> Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP)
>> Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the
>> creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries
>> address the abusive registrations of domain names.
>>
>> The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one
>> to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose
>> candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain
>> names.
>>
>> The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to
>> create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from the
>> May 10, 2012 meeting.
>>
>> Refer to motion 1
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012
>>
>>
>> 3.1   Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)
>>
>> 3.2   Discussion
>> 3.3   Vote
>>
>>
>> Item 4: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes)
>>
>> The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent
>> agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting.
>>
>> At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end
>> this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of
>> the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that
>> constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path
>> forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings.
>>
>> A motion has been made to consider next steps.
>> Refer to motion 2
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012
>> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
>> 4.2 Discussion
>> 4.3 Vote
>>
>>
>> Item 5: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes)
>>
>> The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an OTF.
>> A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar
>> meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting and
>> was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica, the
>> Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to proceed.
>>
>> This is an update item on the work of that group.
>>
>>
>> 5.1   Update from (X Y)
>>
>> 5.2   Discussion
>> 5.3   Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes)
>>
>> The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for
>> information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform
>> its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2).
>>
>> The drafting team submitted its
>> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>
>> to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report
>> to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council
>> decided to put the report out for public comment.
>>
>> A public comment forum was opened (see
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21mar12-en.htm)
>> and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next steps.
>> 6.1   Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings)
>> Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal
>> Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-notices-report-15may12-en.pdf>
>>
>> 6.2   Discussion
>> 6.3   Next steps
>>
>>
>> Item 7: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes)
>>
>>
>> To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on
>> Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance
>> Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations
>> and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen
>> in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might
>> be desirable but not foreseen at this stage.
>>
>> The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its
>> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf>
>> on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12
>> April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP WG
>> Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809).
>>
>> The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any.
>>
>> 7.1 Discussion
>> 7.2 Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>> Item 8: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee
>> on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes)
>> This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG
>> so that next steps for the group can be determined.
>>
>> This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt was
>> unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was needed
>> on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the Council
>> during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful to
>> get responses from Kurt to them.
>>
>> 8.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt Pritz)
>> 8.2 Discussion
>> 8.3 Next steps
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Item 9: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data (IRD) Working
>> Group (WG) (10 minutes)
>>
>> The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March
>> 3, 2012 for review and approval.
>>
>> However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may
>> now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered.
>>
>> This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in
>> the IRD WG's work to the Council.
>>
>> 9.1 WG update from
>> Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slides-10may12-en.pdf>
>> (Steve Sheng)
>> 9.2 Discussion
>>
>>
>> Item 10: UDRP Domain Locking WG (5 minutes)
>> As per the GNSO WG Guidelines, the Chairs of a WG need to be confirmed
>> by the GNSO Council.
>>
>> The Council may wish to note that Michele Neylon (Proposed Chair) and
>> Alan Greenberg (Proposed Vice-Chair) were selected with unanimous
>> support from the Working Group.
>>
>> 10.1 WG update from Staff (Marika Konings)
>> 10.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Item 11: Consumer Metrics WG (5 minutes)
>> The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for
>> discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending it
>> to the Council.
>>
>>
>> As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's input. A
>> letter
>> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdf
>> has been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair.
>>
>> The Council must decide whether to send that letter.
>>
>> 11.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair)
>> 11.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter.
>>
>>
>> Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
>> Section 3)
>> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the
>> GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council
>> motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each
>> House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the
>> following GNSO actions:
>> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than
>> one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
>> described in Annex
>> A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an
>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
>> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO
>> Supermajority.
>> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
>> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an
>> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
>> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment
>> to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
>> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant
>> cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor
>> of termination.
>> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires
>> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires
>> that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4
>> Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
>> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
>> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a
>> two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a
>> consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
>> exceeded.
>> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval
>> by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
>> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
>> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House
>> and a majority of the other House."
>> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
>> 4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>)
>>
>> 4.4.1 Applicability
>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council
>> motions or measures.
>> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
>> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
>> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN
>> Bylaws;
>> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
>> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
>> adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the
>> vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7
>> calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
>> Vice-Chairs present.
>> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
>> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
>> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could
>> include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other
>> technologies as may become available.
>> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
>> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> California, USA
>> (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>)
>> UTC-8+1DST 13:00
>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 ? next day Buenos
>> Aires, Argentina
>> (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>)
>> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
>> Montevideo, Uruguay
>> (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>)
>> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
>> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00
>> Abuja,Nigeria
>> (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>)
>> UTC+1+0DST 21:00
>> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
>> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
>> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
>> Ramat Hasharon,
>> Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html>)
>> UTC+2+0DST 23:00
>> Karachi, Pakistan
>> (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>
>> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 ? next day
>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 ? next day
>> Tokyo, Japan
>> (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>)
>> UTC+9+0DST 05:00 ? next day
>> Wellington, New Zealand
>> (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>
>> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 ? next day
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local
>> time (with exceptions)
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>> Thank you.
>> Kind regards,
>> Glen
>>
>>
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/



From Mary.Wong  Mon Jun  4 19:12:04 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:12:04 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE2D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB42@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<4FCC9438.4010701@seltzer.com>
	<000BC188-C8A4-4394-87DB-9961581E13E5@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE2D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4FCCA6140200005B0008EBE6@smtp.law.unh.edu>

If Bill takes Wendy's proxy I can be Wolfgang's.

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: "Kleinw?chter,
Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To:William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Wendy Seltzer
<wendy at seltzer.com>
CC:NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
Date: 6/4/2012 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7
I have a similar problem. I am in a meeting the whole thursday and can
not join. I share Wendys approach.

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 04.06.2012 17:17
An: Wendy Seltzer
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7



Happy to proxy if you'd like.

B

On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I'll be at a workshop during at least the first half of Thursday's
> Council meeting.  Can anyone take my proxy?
>
> I'd vote against Zahid's "Best Practices" motion (really, two
drafting
> teams is excessive), and am indifferent to the second so long as
it's
> only a "recommends."
>
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda 7 June 2012
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:02:06 -0700
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June
2012
> which is also posted on the Wiki at:
>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+2012
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and
updated.
>
http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
> For convenience:
>
> *   An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> *   An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of
this
> agenda.
> Meeting Times 20:00
>
UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2>
>
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2
> Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
> 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris;
05:00
> Tokyo next day
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.
Councilors
> should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is
needed.
> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per
the
> GNSO Operating Procedures:
> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 10 May 2012 approved on 28
May
> 2012.
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.htm
>
>
> 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
>
> *   Review main changes.
> *   Comments and/or questions.
> Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)
> A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to
> provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on
specific
> tasks.
>
> 2.1 GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC)
&
> Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. Approve sending of note to GAC.
>
> Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15
minutes)
>
> Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies
(RAP)
> Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the
> creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and
registries
> address the abusive registrations of domain names.
>
> The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups,
one
> to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose
> candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of
domain
> names.
>
> The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to
> create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from
the
> May 10, 2012 meeting.
>
> Refer to motion 1
>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012
>
>
> 3.1   Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)
>
> 3.2   Discussion
> 3.3   Vote
>
>
> Item 4: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes)
>
> The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the
consent
> agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting.
>
> At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to
end
> this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part
of
> the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that
> constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path
> forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica
meetings.
>
> A motion has been made to consider next steps.
> Refer to motion 2
>
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion
> 4.3 Vote
>
>
> Item 5: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes)
>
> The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an
OTF.
> A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar
> meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting
and
> was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica,
the
> Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to
proceed.
>
> This is an update item on the work of that group.
>
>
> 5.1   Update from (X Y)
>
> 5.2   Discussion
> 5.3   Next steps
>
>
>
> Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes)
>
> The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for
> information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help
inform
> its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal
Notices (#2).
>
> The drafting team submitted its
>
report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>
> to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the
report
> to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO
Council
> decided to put the report out for public comment.
>
> A public comment forum was opened (see
>
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21mar12-en.htm)
> and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next
steps.
> 6.1   Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings)
> Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal
>
Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-notices-report-15may12-en.pdf>
>
> 6.2   Discussion
> 6.3   Next steps
>
>
> Item 7: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes)
>
>
> To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on
> Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN
Compliance
> Department to report on existing systems to report and track
violations
> and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or
foreseen
> in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that
might
> be desirable but not foreseen at this stage.
>
> The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its
>
report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf>
> on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on
12
> April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP
WG
> Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809).
>
> The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any.
>
> 7.1 Discussion
> 7.2 Next steps
>
>
>
> Item 8: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory
Committee
> on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes)
> This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS
WG
> so that next steps for the group can be determined.
>
> This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt
was
> unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was
needed
> on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the
Council
> during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful
to
> get responses from Kurt to them.
>
> 8.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt
Pritz)
> 8.2 Discussion
> 8.3 Next steps
>
>
>
>
> Item 9: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data (IRD)
Working
> Group (WG) (10 minutes)
>
> The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on
March
> 3, 2012 for review and approval.
>
> However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work
may
> now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered.
>
> This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments
in
> the IRD WG's work to the Council.
>
> 9.1 WG update from
>
Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slides-10may12-en.pdf>
> (Steve Sheng)
> 9.2 Discussion
>
>
> Item 10: UDRP Domain Locking WG (5 minutes)
> As per the GNSO WG Guidelines, the Chairs of a WG need to be
confirmed
> by the GNSO Council.
>
> The Council may wish to note that Michele Neylon (Proposed Chair)
and
> Alan Greenberg (Proposed Vice-Chair) were selected with unanimous
> support from the Working Group.
>
> 10.1 WG update from Staff (Marika Konings)
> 10.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC.
>
>
>
> Item 11: Consumer Metrics WG (5 minutes)
> The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for
> discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending
it
> to the Council.
>
>
> As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's
input. A
> letter
>
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdf
> has been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair.
>
> The Council must decide whether to send that letter.
>
> 11.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair)
> 11.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter.
>
>
> Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
> Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or
the
> GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO
Council
> motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of
each
> House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the
> following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more
than
> one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
> described in Annex
> A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires
an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more
than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of
GNSO
> Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more
than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires
an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an
amendment
> to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of
a
> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for
significant
> cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in
favor
> of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:
requires
> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires
> that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4
> Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires
an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that
"a
> two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a
> consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met
or
> exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final
Approval
> by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified
or
> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one
House
> and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
>
4.4<http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>)
>
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of
Council
> motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or
ICANN
> Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
> adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of
the
> vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time
to 7
> calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
> Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide
reasonable
> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which
could
> include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other
> technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN
hemisphere
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA
>
(PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>)
> UTC-8+1DST 13:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 - next day Buenos
> Aires, Argentina
>
(ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay
>
(UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00
> Abuja,Nigeria
>
(WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>)
> UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Ramat Hasharon,
>
Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html>)
> UTC+2+0DST 23:00
> Karachi, Pakistan
>
(PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>
> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 - next day
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 - next day
> Tokyo, Japan
>
(JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>)
> UTC+9+0DST 05:00 - next day
> Wellington, New Zealand
>
(NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>
> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 - next day
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00
local
> time (with exceptions)
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
<http://www.timeanddate.com/> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120604/ddabf61b/attachment-0001.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Mon Jun  4 19:25:25 2012
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 18:25:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11BCAB42@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<4FCC9438.4010701@seltzer.com>
	<000BC188-C8A4-4394-87DB-9961581E13E5@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE2D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<4FCCA6140200005B0008EBE6@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCE2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Mary
 
w
 

________________________________

Von: Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu [mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]
Gesendet: Mo 04.06.2012 18:12
An: Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang; Wendy Seltzer; William Drake
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7


If Bill takes Wendy's proxy I can be Wolfgang's.


 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>>> 
From: 	"Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	
To:	 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>	
CC:	 NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>	
Date: 	6/4/2012 12:06 PM	
Subject: 	Re: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7	
I have a similar problem. I am in a meeting the whole thursday and can not join. I share Wendys approach.

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 04.06.2012 17:17
An: Wendy Seltzer
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Alternate/proxy needed June 7



Happy to proxy if you'd like.

B

On Jun 4, 2012, at 12:55 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I'll be at a workshop during at least the first half of Thursday's
> Council meeting.  Can anyone take my proxy?
>
> I'd vote against Zahid's "Best Practices" motion (really, two drafting
> teams is excessive), and am indifferent to the second so long as it's
> only a "recommends."
>
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] Draft GNSO Council Agenda 7 June 2012
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:02:06 -0700
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 7 June 2012
> which is also posted on the Wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+2012
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
> Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-en.pdf
> For convenience:
>
> *   An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> *   An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this
> agenda.
> Meeting Times 20:00
> UTC<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+Meeting+&iso=20120607T20&ah=2
> Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
> 13:00 Los Angeles; 16:00 Washington; 21:00 London; 22:00 Paris; 05:00
> Tokyo next day
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors
> should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the
> GNSO Operating Procedures:
> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 10 May 2012 approved on 28 May
> 2012.
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-10may12-en.htm
>
>
> 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
>
> *   Review main changes.
> *   Comments and/or questions.
> Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes)
> A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to
> provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific
> tasks.
>
> 2.1 GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) &
> Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. Approve sending of note to GAC.
>
> Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes)
>
> Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP)
> Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the
> creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries
> address the abusive registrations of domain names.
>
> The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one
> to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose
> candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain
> names.
>
> The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to
> create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from the
> May 10, 2012 meeting.
>
> Refer to motion 1
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012
>
>
> 3.1   Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)
>
> 3.2   Discussion
> 3.3   Vote
>
>
> Item 4: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes)
>
> The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent
> agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting.
>
> At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end
> this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of
> the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that
> constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path
> forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings.
>
> A motion has been made to consider next steps.
> Refer to motion 2
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+2012
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 4.2 Discussion
> 4.3 Vote
>
>
> Item 5: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes)
>
> The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an OTF.
> A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar
> meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting and
> was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica, the
> Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to proceed.
>
> This is an update item on the work of that group.
>
>
> 5.1   Update from (X Y)
>
> 5.2   Discussion
> 5.3   Next steps
>
>
>
> Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes)
>
> The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for
> information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform
> its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2).
>
> The drafting team submitted its
> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf>
> to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report
> to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council
> decided to put the report out for public comment.
>
> A public comment forum was opened (see
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21mar12-en.htm)
> and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next steps.
> 6.1   Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings)
> Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal
> Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-notices-report-15may12-en.pdf>
>
> 6.2   Discussion
> 6.3   Next steps
>
>
> Item 7: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes)
>
>
> To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on
> Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance
> Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations
> and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen
> in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might
> be desirable but not foreseen at this stage.
>
> The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its
> report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf>
> on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12
> April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP WG
> Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809).
>
> The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any.
>
> 7.1 Discussion
> 7.2 Next steps
>
>
>
> Item 8: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee
> on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes)
> This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG
> so that next steps for the group can be determined.
>
> This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt was
> unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was needed
> on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the Council
> during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful to
> get responses from Kurt to them.
>
> 8.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt Pritz)
> 8.2 Discussion
> 8.3 Next steps
>
>
>
>
> Item 9: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data (IRD) Working
> Group (WG) (10 minutes)
>
> The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March
> 3, 2012 for review and approval.
>
> However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may
> now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered.
>
> This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in
> the IRD WG's work to the Council.
>
> 9.1 WG update from
> Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slides-10may12-en.pdf>
> (Steve Sheng)
> 9.2 Discussion
>
>
> Item 10: UDRP Domain Locking WG (5 minutes)
> As per the GNSO WG Guidelines, the Chairs of a WG need to be confirmed
> by the GNSO Council.
>
> The Council may wish to note that Michele Neylon (Proposed Chair) and
> Alan Greenberg (Proposed Vice-Chair) were selected with unanimous
> support from the Working Group.
>
> 10.1 WG update from Staff (Marika Konings)
> 10.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC.
>
>
>
> Item 11: Consumer Metrics WG (5 minutes)
> The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for
> discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending it
> to the Council.
>
>
> As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's input. A
> letter
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdf
> has been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair.
>
> The Council must decide whether to send that letter.
>
> 11.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair)
> 11.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter.
>
>
> Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
> Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the
> GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council
> motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each
> House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the
> following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than
> one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
> described in Annex
> A<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA>): requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO
> Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than
> two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment
> to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a
> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant
> cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor
> of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires
> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires
> that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4
> Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a
> two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a
> consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or
> exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval
> by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or
> amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House
> and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures
> 4.4<http://gnso.icann..org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf <http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf> >)
>
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council
> motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN
> Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
> adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the
> vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7
> calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all
> Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable
> means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could
> include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other
> technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA
> (PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>)
> UTC-8+1DST 13:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EDT) UTC-5+1DST 16:00 - next day Buenos
> Aires, Argentina
> (ART<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay
> (UYT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>)
> UTC-3+0DST 17:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+1DST 21:00
> Abuja,Nigeria
> (WAT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html>)
> UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Paris, France (CEST) UTC+1+1DST 22:00
> Ramat Hasharon,
> Israel(IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html>)
> UTC+2+0DST 23:00
> Karachi, Pakistan
> (PKT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html>
> ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 - next day
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 - next day
> Tokyo, Japan
> (JST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>)
> UTC+9+0DST 05:00 - next day
> Wellington, New Zealand
> (NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>
> ) UTC+12+0DST 08:00 - next day
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local
> time (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com <http://www.timeanddate.com/>  <http://www.timeanddate.com/> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>  <http://gnso.icann.org/> 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Mary.Wong  Tue Jun  5 00:03:49 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:03:49 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Discussion Agenda & Dial-in
 Details for NCSG Policy Mtg 6 June (19:00 UTC)
In-Reply-To: <5498391A-FEB6-48A9-BF23-4F78F38F3085@ipjustice.org>
References: <5498391A-FEB6-48A9-BF23-4F78F38F3085@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <4FCCEA750200005B0008EC3F@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Hi Robin and everyone,
 
I am so sorry, but I will be on a plane then and won't be able to dial in :(
 
I have Wolfgang's email with his voting instructions and so will be able to be his proxy. I will also connect during the meeting with Bill and others to see if there are voting changes that came out of the Wednesday call.
 
Thanks and cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
To:<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date: 6/4/2012 1:20 AM
Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Discussion Agenda & Dial-in Details for NCSG Policy Mtg 6 June (19:00 UTC)
Dear All,


The  NCSG Open Policy Discussion teleconference is scheduled on Wednesday 6 June 2012 at 19:00 - 21:00 UTC .
All NCSG members are welcome to dial-in and participate in the open discussion with the NCSG Policy Council, which includes the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors and the different constituency representatives.  This meeting is held in conjunction with the 7 June GNSO Council meeting and will also include some planning for the upcoming ICANN meeting in Prague.  A draft discussion agenda and dial-in details are below.  I hope you all will join in the call!  


Thank you,
Robin




Draft Discussion Agenda - NCSG Open Policy Meeting


I.  GNSO Council Issues
A. GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. GNSO Council to approve sending of note to GAC.
B. GNSO Council to vote on charter for drafting team to create working groups to establish "Best Practices" for addressing abusive registrations
C. Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG)
D.  GNSO Council to vote on motion to consider next steps regarding whois access recommendations


E.  Outreach task force discussion - what do we want?


F.  Fake renewal notices - public comment on report over - what next?


G.  GNSO Council to approve sending letter to GAC re: Consumer Metrics working group


II.  Issues related to new GTLD program
 A.  URS Summit?
 B.  Next steps for program?


III.  Preparation for Prague
A.  Discussion topics to propose for the following discussions in Prague:
1.  Board & NCSG
    Developing a human rights impact assessment for policy development processes
2.  NCSG & At-Large
3.  Public Forum
B.  What else?


IV.  Open Comments
See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment


V.  Any Other Business?


======================================================


NCSG Open Policy Meeting 6 June 2012 (19:00 UTC)
ADOBE CONNECT Room:
https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/


____________________________________________________________________________
Dial-in participant passcode: NCSG

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the call.                                          
____________________________________________________________________________
Dial in numbers:                               
Country                             Toll Numbers          Freephone/Toll Free Number

ARGENTINA                                                   0800-777-0519
AUSTRALIA           ADELAIDE:      61-8-8121-4842           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           BRISBANE:      61-7-3102-0944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           CANBERRA:      61-2-6100-1944           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           MELBOURNE:     61-3-9010-7713           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           PERTH:         61-8-9467-5223           1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA           SYDNEY:        61-2-8205-8129           1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA                            43-1-92-81-113           0800-005-259
BELGIUM                            32-2-400-9861            0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                                                      0800-7610651
CHILE                                                       1230-020-2863
CHINA               CHINA A:       86-400-810-4789          10800-712-1670
CHINA               CHINA B:       86-400-810-4789          10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                                                    01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC                     420-2-25-98-56-64        800-700-177
DENMARK                            45-7014-0284             8088-8324
ESTONIA                                                     800-011-1093
FINLAND             Land Line:     106-33-203               0-800-9-14610
FINLAND             Mobile:        09-106-33-203            0-800-9-14610
FRANCE              LYON:          33-4-26-69-12-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              MARSEILLE:     33-4-86-06-00-85         080-511-1496
FRANCE              PARIS:         33-1-70-70-60-72         080-511-1496
GERMANY                            49-69-2222-20362         0800-664-4247
GREECE                             30-80-1-100-0687         00800-12-7312
HONG KONG                          852-3001-3863            800-962-856
HUNGARY                                                     06-800-12755
INDIA                                                       000-800-852-1268
INDONESIA                                                   001-803-011-3982
IRELAND                            353-1-246-7646           1800-992-368
ISRAEL                                                      1-80-9216162
ITALY                              39-02-3600-6007          800-986-383
JAPAN               OSAKA:         81-6-7739-4799           0066-33-132439
JAPAN               TOKYO:         81-3-5539-5191           0066-33-132439
LATVIA                                                      8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG                         352-27-000-1364          
MALAYSIA                                                    1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                                                      001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS                        31-20-718-8588           0800-023-4378
NEW ZEALAND                        64-9-970-4771            0800-447-722
NORWAY                             47-21-590-062            800-15157
PANAMA                                                      011-001-800-5072065
PERU                                                        0800-53713
PHILIPPINES                        63-2-858-3716            
POLAND                                                      00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                                                    8008-14052
RUSSIA                                                      8-10-8002-0144011
SINGAPORE                          65-6883-9230             800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC                    421-2-322-422-25         
SOUTH AFRICA                                                080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA                        82-2-6744-1083           00798-14800-7352
SPAIN                              34-91-414-25-33          800-300-053
SWEDEN                             46-8-566-19-348          0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND                        41-44-580-6398           0800-120-032
TAIWAN                             886-2-2795-7379          00801-137-797
THAILAND                                                    001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM      BIRMINGHAM:    44-121-210-9025          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      GLASGOW:       44-141-202-3225          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LEEDS:         44-113-301-2125          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      LONDON:        44-20-7108-6370          0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM      MANCHESTER:    44-161-601-1425          0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                                                     000-413-598-3421
USA                                1-517-345-9004           866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                                                   0800-1-00-3702     



======================================================
DRAFT AGENDA of GNSO COUNCIL MEETING on 7 JUNE 2012posted: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+07+June+20121.5. GNSO Pending Projects Listhttp://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf * Review main changes. * Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. 2.1 GAC/GNSO Issues Related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) & Red Cross (RC) Names Drafting Team. Approve sending of note to GAC. Item 3: Best practices for addressing abusive registrations (15 minutes) Following the recommendation of the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group, the GNSO Council requested a discussion paper on the creation of non-binding best practices to help registrars and registries address the abusive registrations of domain names. The discussion paper recommended the creation of two Working Groups, one to establish the framework for best practices and one to propose candidate best practices to address the abusive registration of domain names. The Council must now consider a motion to set up a drafting team to create the charter for these groups. This motion was deferred from the May 10, 2012 meeting. Refer to motion 1https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+May+2012 3.1 Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil) 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: WHOIS Access recommendation (10 minutes) The WHOIS access recommendation was considered as part of the consent agenda at the Council's 16 February 2012 meeting. At that meeting, the ISP constituency requested that the proposal to end this work be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of the GNSO's main agenda. A further suggestion was suggested that constituency/stakeholder members work with Staff to identify a path forward and that the topic be further discussed at the Costa Rica meetings. A motion has been made to consider next steps. Refer to motion 2https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+07+June+20124.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: Outreach Task Force (OTF) (10 minutes) The Council has set up a drafting team to develop a charter for an OTF. A motion to approve that charter did not pass when made at the Dakar meeting. A second motion was made at the December 15, 2011 meeting and was not seconded, which meant it was not considered. In Costa Rica, the Council decided to form a group to discuss options on how to proceed. This is an update item on the work of that group. 5.1 Update from (X Y) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: Fake Renewal Notices (10 minutes) The GNSO Council requested that a small group prepare a request for information concerning Fake Renewal Notices for the RrSG to help inform its deliberations on the RAP WG Recommendation on Fake Renewal Notices (#2). The drafting team submitted its report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/frn/fake-renewal-notices-report-06mar12-en.pdf> to the GNSO Council on 6 March. Following a presentation of the report to the GNSO Council at the ICANN Meeting in Costa Rica, the GNSO Council decided to put the report out for public comment. A public comment forum was opened (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/fake-renewal-notices-report-21mar12-en.htm) and has now closed. The Council is now expected to consider next steps. 6.1 Public comment forum submissions overview (Marika Konings) Report of Public Comments on Fake Renewal Notices<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-fake-renewal-notices-report-15may12-en.pdf> 6.2 Discussion 6.3 Next steps Item 7: Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes) To help inform its consideration of the RAPWG Recommendation on Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council requested the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. The ICANN Compliance Team submitted its report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/contractual-compliance-report-reporting-uniformity-16mar12-en.pdf> on 18 March and presented it to the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April. ICANN Staff also provided a background presentation on the RAP WG Recommendation (see https://gnso.icann.org/node/30809). The GNSO Council is now expected to consider next steps, if any. 7.1 Discussion 7.2 Next steps Item 8: Update on the Joint Supporting Organisations/Advisory Committee on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (15 minutes) This item aims to provide the Council with a status update on the JAS WG so that next steps for the group can be determined. This was discussed at the May 10, 2012 Council meeting but as Kurt was unable to attend, the Council felt another discussion point was needed on this subject. Also, a number of questions were asked by the Council during its previous meeting and it was felt that it would be useful to get responses from Kurt to them. 8.1 WG update from Staff, and answers to Council questions (Kurt Pritz) 8.2 Discussion 8.3 Next steps Item 9: Update on the Internationalised Registration Data (IRD) Working Group (WG) (10 minutes) The IRD submitted its final report to the GNSO Council and SSAC on March 3, 2012 for review and approval. However, SSAC has recommend some substantial changes and more work may now be needed by the IRD before its final report can be considered. This agenda item is to provide an update on these latest developments in the IRD WG's work to the Council. 9.1 WG update from Staff<https://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/status-update-ird-wg-final-report-slides-10may12-en.pdf> (Steve Sheng) 9.2 Discussion Item 10: UDRP Domain Locking WG (5 minutes) As per the GNSO WG Guidelines, the Chairs of a WG need to be confirmed by the GNSO Council. The Council may wish to note that Michele Neylon (Proposed Chair) and Alan Greenberg (Proposed Vice-Chair) were selected with unanimous support from the Working Group. 10.1 WG update from Staff (Marika Konings) 10.2 Council approval of proposed WG Chair and VC. Item 11: Consumer Metrics WG (5 minutes) The Consumer Metrics WG has prepared a draft advice document for discussion in Prague in order to finalise the document before sending it to the Council. As part of that process, the WG would like to solicit the GAC's input. A letterhttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/cci-draft-letter-gnso-to-gac-23may12-en.pdfhas been drafted for the Council Chair to send to the GAC Chair. The Council must decide whether to send that letter. 11.1 WG update from Council Liaison (Rosemary Sinclair) 11.2 Council approval of sending proposed letter. Item 12: Any Other Business (5 minutes)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120604/32ead593/attachment-0001.html>


From Mary.Wong  Wed Jun 20 01:59:04 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:59:04 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
Message-ID: <4FE0CBF80200005B0008F70F@smtp.law.unh.edu>

All, please let Avri or me know if you have any objections to the documents attached below. They are some of the items being discussed in the Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements, with a view toward clarifying some of the more complex GNSO rules and procedures. The first document is a tabular presentation of current GNSO voting thresholds, and the second is a recommendation for how the GNSO Council should deal with a proposed Consent Agenda for its meetings (an idea similar to what the ICANN Board also does for its formal meetings).
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
To:<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
Date: 6/19/2012 7:41 AM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus

 
 
All:
 
this is the last call for a consensus on the following items:
        - GNSO Council Voting Results Table
        - Consent Agenda
 
The related documents are attached.
 

In case of no further request of amendment until Wednesday, 20 June 12:00 UTC, I'll incorporate these documents in the report to the council in Prague.
 
 
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120619/c31bd62b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Council Voting_Consensus Call.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 120832 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120619/c31bd62b/attachment-0002.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consent Agenda - Consensus Call.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 46592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120619/c31bd62b/attachment-0003.doc>


From william.drake  Wed Jun 20 10:07:02 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:07:02 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
In-Reply-To: <4FE0CBF80200005B0008F70F@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <4FE0CBF80200005B0008F70F@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <B86CBC16-7B5B-48CB-A857-ABEF98C6EB83@uzh.ch>

At a meeting and can't process but trust whatever you folks have argued is fine.

BD

On Jun 20, 2012, at 12:59 AM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> All, please let Avri or me know if you have any objections to the documents attached below. They are some of the items being discussed in the Standing Committee for GNSO Improvements, with a view toward clarifying some of the more complex GNSO rules and procedures. The first document is a tabular presentation of current GNSO voting thresholds, and the second is a recommendation for how the GNSO Council should deal with a proposed Consent Agenda for its meetings (an idea similar to what the ICANN Board also does for its formal meetings).
>  
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
>  
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
> >>>
> From:	<KnobenW at telekom.de>
> To:	<gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
> Date:	6/19/2012 7:41 AM
> Subject:	[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Last call for Consensus
>  
>  
> All:
>  
> this is the last call for a consensus on the following items:
>         - GNSO Council Voting Results Table
>         - Consent Agenda
>  
> The related documents are attached.
>  
> In case of no further request of amendment until Wednesday, 20 June 12:00 UTC, I'll incorporate these documents in the report to the council in Prague.
>  
>  
> Best regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>  
> <GNSO Council Voting_Consensus Call.doc><Consent Agenda - Consensus Call.doc>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120620/0dc1f895/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Jun 22 20:49:08 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:49:08 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Monday 25 June NCSG PC meeting in
	Prague
Message-ID: <16595477-9850-4957-84C7-9E934E93798D@ipjustice.org>

Dear Policy Committee Members:

Below is our draft discussion agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee meeting on Monday 25 June in Prague.  There is remote participation available for those PC members who will not be in Prague physically.

Since our schedule is so full and we have so many issues to cover in a small amount of time, I'll have to be rather strict about observing the time limits to keep us on track with the agenda.

Thank you!  I hope you all will join in the discussion on Monday morning.

Best,
Robin


NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Monday 9:00 - 11:00 (25 June)

Discussion Agenda

I.  Key NCSG Policy Issues ( 9:00 - 10:25 )
1.  Registrar Agreement Amendments / Law Enforcement Agency Pressure    9:00 - 9:30
  a.  Meet with Rr negotiator for status update
  b.  How can NCSG influence these negotiations?
  c.  ICANN needs to include input from privacy commissioners, data retention officers, etc (not only police & military) in its input from law enforcement community & governments
2.  Human Rights Concerns: Baking privacy, freedom of expression, and due process of law into ICANN policy processes   9:30 - 9:45
3.  Whois policy developments     9:45 - 9:50
4.  New gtld Issues  9:50 - 10:10
  a.  Special privileges for IOC / RC / IGO's 
	i)  should anyone get special privileges without a PDP?
       ii)  should the sui generis issues be separated?	 
  b.  IPR concerns
	i) URS Summit
  c.   privileged position of GAC in the objection process / GAC letter declaring it can't advise 
  d.   outreach and the poor showing with applicant support  
  e.  the newest complaint from the big applicants about how Amazon or Google getting a generic TLD is unfair becasue they have more money and because it "hurts the public interest" 
  f.   digital archery 
  g.  glitches
5.  GNSO Outreach   10:10 - 10:15
6.  Standing Committee on GNSO improvements  10:15 - 10:20
  Vote Deferrals, Proxies, other
7.  Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice & Competition    10:20 - 10:25


II.  Prep for GNSO meeting & votes (10:25 - 10:50)
   See:   Agenda of 6/27 GNSO Council mtg
              Motions of 6/27 GNSO Council mtg

1.  vote on motion RE: whois access recommendations
2.  vote on motion RE: IRD WG Final Report (3March) data model for domain registration data
3.  discussion on GNSO leadership elections
4.  discussion on Registration Policies Abuse Working Group (RAP WG) on Uniformity of Reporting - What to do about ICANN Compliance Team Report?
5.  discussion on Impact of new gtld program on existing GNSO structure

III.  AOB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120622/2d8061ab/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Fri Jun 22 23:20:22 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:20:22 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Monday 25 June NCSG PC meeting
	in Prague
In-Reply-To: <16595477-9850-4957-84C7-9E934E93798D@ipjustice.org>
References: <16595477-9850-4957-84C7-9E934E93798D@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <7906E829-6120-44BE-8197-1EB27FD8FF63@uzh.ch>

Looks good, thanks Robin and see you soon.

Bill

On Jun 22, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> NCSG Policy Committee Meeting - Monday 9:00 - 11:00 (25 June)
> 
> Discussion Agenda
> 
> I.  Key NCSG Policy Issues ( 9:00 - 10:25 )
> 1.  Registrar Agreement Amendments / Law Enforcement Agency Pressure    9:00 - 9:30
>   a.  Meet with Rr negotiator for status update
>   b.  How can NCSG influence these negotiations?
>   c.  ICANN needs to include input from privacy commissioners, data retention officers, etc (not only police & military) in its input from law enforcement community & governments
> 2.  Human Rights Concerns: Baking privacy, freedom of expression, and due process of law into ICANN policy processes   9:30 - 9:45
> 3.  Whois policy developments     9:45 - 9:50
> 4.  New gtld Issues  9:50 - 10:10
>   a.  Special privileges for IOC / RC / IGO's 
> 	i)  should anyone get special privileges without a PDP?
>        ii)  should the sui generis issues be separated?	 
>   b.  IPR concerns
> 	i) URS Summit
>   c.   privileged position of GAC in the objection process / GAC letter declaring it can't advise 
>   d.   outreach and the poor showing with applicant support  
>   e.  the newest complaint from the big applicants about how Amazon or Google getting a generic TLD is unfair becasue they have more money and because it "hurts the public interest" 
>   f.   digital archery 
>   g.  glitches
> 5.  GNSO Outreach   10:10 - 10:15
> 6.  Standing Committee on GNSO improvements  10:15 - 10:20
>   Vote Deferrals, Proxies, other
> 7.  Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice & Competition    10:20 - 10:25

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120622/7fb0bae9/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Jun 24 16:13:00 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 06:13:00 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Dial in details for remote participation for the
	NCSG meeting on Monday 25 June 2012 in Prague
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184B11F81156@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <E6DBDC28-FE9B-4BD3-BD9B-449F0E0671C9@ipjustice.org>

FYI:

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: Dial in details for remote participation for the NCSG meeting on Monday 25 June 2012 in Prague
> Date: June 24, 2012 6:11:18 AM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, "David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) (dave at difference.com.au)" <dave at difference.com.au>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> 
>  
> Dear all,
>  
> Please find below the dial in details for the  NCSG Policy Committee meeting on the Monday 25 June 2012 in Prague.
> 
> 09-00 ? 11:00
> For other times click on the link below
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG&iso=20120625T09&p1=204&ah=2
>  
> Password: NCSGPC
> 
>  
> Dial in numbers:
> Country
>  
> Toll Numbers
> Freephone/
> Toll Free Number
> ARGENTINA           
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0800-777-0519
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> ADELAIDE:      
> 
> 61-8-8121-4842           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> BRISBANE:      
> 
> 61-7-3102-0944           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> CANBERRA:      
> 
> 61-2-6100-1944           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> MELBOURNE:     
> 
> 61-3-9010-7713           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> PERTH:         
> 
> 61-8-9467-5223           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> SYDNEY:        
> 
> 61-2-8205-8129           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRIA             
> 
>               
> 
> 43-1-92-81-113           
> 
> 0800-005-259
> 
> BELGIUM             
> 
>               
> 
> 32-2-400-9861            
> 
> 0800-3-8795
> 
> BRAZIL              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0800-7610651
> 
> CHILE               
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 1230-020-2863
> 
> CHINA               
> 
> CHINA A:       
> 
> 86-400-810-4789          
> 
> 10800-712-1670
> 
> CHINA               
> 
> CHINA B:       
> 
> 86-400-810-4789          
> 
> 10800-120-1670
> 
> COLOMBIA            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 01800-9-156474
> 
> CZECH REPUBLIC      
> 
>               
> 
> 420-2-25-98-56-64        
> 
> 800-700-177
> 
> DENMARK             
> 
>               
> 
> 45-7014-0284             
> 
> 8088-8324
> 
> ESTONIA             
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 800-011-1093
> 
> FINLAND             
> 
> Land Line:     
> 
> 106-33-203               
> 
> 0-800-9-14610
> 
> FINLAND             
> 
> Mobile:        
> 
> 09-106-33-203            
> 
> 0-800-9-14610
> 
> FRANCE              
> 
> LYON:          
> 
> 33-4-26-69-12-85         
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE              
> 
> MARSEILLE:     
> 
> 33-4-86-06-00-85         
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE              
> 
> PARIS:         
> 
> 33-1-70-70-60-72         
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> GERMANY             
> 
>               
> 
> 49-69-2222-20362         
> 
> 0800-664-4247
> 
> GREECE              
> 
>               
> 
> 30-80-1-100-0687         
> 
> 00800-12-7312
> 
> HONG KONG           
> 
>               
> 
> 852-3001-3863            
> 
> 800-962-856
> 
> HUNGARY             
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 06-800-12755
> 
> INDIA               
> 
> INDIA A:       
> 
>                         
> 
> 000-800-852-1268
> 
> INDIA               
> 
> INDIA B:       
> 
>                         
> 
> 000-800-001-6305
> 
> INDIA               
> 
> INDIA C:       
> 
>                         
> 
> 1800-300-00491
> 
> INDONESIA           
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 001-803-011-3982
> 
> IRELAND             
> 
>               
> 
> 353-1-246-7646           
> 
> 1800-992-368
> 
> ISRAEL              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 1-80-9216162
> 
> ITALY               
> 
>               
> 
> 39-02-3600-6007          
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> JAPAN               
> 
> OSAKA:         
> 
> 81-6-7739-4799           
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> JAPAN               
> 
> TOKYO:         
> 
> 81-3-5539-5191           
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> LATVIA              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 8000-3185
> 
> LUXEMBOURG          
> 
>               
> 
> 352-27-000-1364          
> 
> MALAYSIA            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 1-800-81-3065
> 
> MEXICO              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> NETHERLANDS         
> 
>               
> 
> 31-20-718-8588           
> 
> 0800-023-4378
> 
> NEW ZEALAND         
> 
>               
> 
> 64-9-970-4771            
> 
> 0800-447-722
> 
> NORWAY              
> 
>               
> 
> 47-21-590-062            
> 
> 800-15157
> 
> PANAMA              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 011-001-800-5072065
> 
> PERU                
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0800-53713
> 
> PHILIPPINES         
> 
>               
> 
> 63-2-858-3716            
> 
> POLAND              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 00-800-1212572
> 
> PORTUGAL            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 8008-14052
> 
> RUSSIA              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 8-10-8002-0144011
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA        
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 800-8-110087
> 
> SINGAPORE           
> 
>               
> 
> 65-6883-9230             
> 
> 800-120-4663
> 
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC     
> 
>               
> 
> 421-2-322-422-25         
> 
> SOUTH AFRICA        
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 080-09-80414
> 
> SOUTH KOREA         
> 
>               
> 
> 82-2-6744-1083           
> 
> 00798-14800-7352
> 
> SPAIN               
> 
>               
> 
> 34-91-414-25-33          
> 
> 800-300-053
> 
> SWEDEN              
> 
>               
> 
> 46-8-566-19-348          
> 
> 0200-884-622
> 
> SWITZERLAND         
> 
>               
> 
> 41-44-580-6398           
> 
> 0800-120-032
> 
> TAIWAN              
> 
>               
> 
> 886-2-2795-7379          
> 
> 00801-137-797
> 
> THAILAND            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 001-800-1206-66056
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> BIRMINGHAM:    
> 
> 44-121-210-9025          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> GLASGOW:       
> 
> 44-141-202-3225          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> LEEDS:         
> 
> 44-113-301-2125          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> LONDON:        
> 
> 44-20-7108-6370          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> MANCHESTER:    
> 
> 44-161-601-1425          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> URUGUAY             
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 000-413-598-3421
> 
> USA                 
> 
>               
> 
> 1-517-345-9004           
> 
> 866-692-5726
> 
> VENEZUELA           
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0800-1-00-3702
> 
> Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120624/f1bfe640/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Thu Jun 28 10:50:15 2012
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 03:50:15 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] DRAFT: Referral to SSAC on WHOIS impacts on domain
	security and stability
In-Reply-To: <4FEC0B8A.6050909@seltzer.org>
References: <4FEC0B8A.6050909@seltzer.org>
Message-ID: <4FEC0CB7.4000908@seltzer.com>

Here's a proposed referral to SSAC requesting an analysis of security
problems in WHOIS validation and data reminders.  I raised the question
informally with Patrik and a few other members of SSAC.

Let me know if you have thoughts or questions.
--Wendy

Dear Patrik:

On behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, representing
non-commercial Internet registrants and users in the GNSO, I write with
some security questions about recent WHOIS proposals in the WHOIS Review
Team Final Report and Recommendations and the draft Registrar
Accreditation Agreement. Specifically, I am concerned that email or
phone validation, whether pre- or post-resolution of a domain name,
introduces new risks to the stability of that name. As SSAC is charged
with advising the ICANN Community and Board on "matters relating to the
security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation
systems," [0] I believe its analysis would be valuable here. (I
acknowledge that most of the concerns relate to the security and
stability of individual domain names, but as they stem from a systemic
weakness in the proposed domain registration system.)

For example, if validation by returning an email were required before a
newly-registered domain name is permitted to resolve, as requested by
Law Enforcement [1], the potential registrant must find an alternate
provider of secure email by which to receive the validation, or risk
losing the name because he cannot do so.

At any point when such validation is required -- annually, upon
registration or renewal, or in response to a third-party complaint of
"inaccuracy" -- that could provide an opportunity for an attacker to
target a man-in-the-middle or phishing attack on the user's server or
client, or a denial of service at the user's mailserver (known, from the
email published in WHOIS). If a name is to be put on hold or suspended
because of a registrant's failure to respond, these attacks provide a
way to destabilize registrant's control of the domain and any further
systems that depend upon it.

Second, these communications train users in poor security practices. I
note that current WHOIS reminder reports (WDPRS) are rarely, if ever,
signed, so users are not currently primed or able to verify the
authenticity of these communications. Encouraging them to provide
sensitive personal and/or systems information in response to such emails
harms them.

Similar concerns apply to the "accuracy" recommendations of the WHOIS
Review Team report [2]. I believe that a full threat analysis would be
valuable and likely to identify additional risks to domain registrants
and the registration system.

Please feel free to get in touch if I can provide further information.
We would be happy to work with you to refine the questions and analysis.

--Wendy

[0] http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/charter
[1]
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30344497/LE_Rec_Validation2012+%282%29.pdf
[2]
http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf



From avri  Thu Jun 28 11:07:30 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:07:30 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
	=?utf-8?q?DRAFT=3A_Referral_to_SSAC_on_WHOIS_impacts_on?=
	=?utf-8?q?_domain=09security_and_stability?=
In-Reply-To: <4FEC0CB7.4000908@seltzer.com>
References: <4FEC0B8A.6050909@seltzer.org> <4FEC0CB7.4000908@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <9bb29ed0-e82f-4dc2-bcbe-a4495c2a5273@email.android.com>

Good statement
I recommend NCSG endorsement of this statement.

avri


Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

>Here's a proposed referral to SSAC requesting an analysis of security
>problems in WHOIS validation and data reminders.  I raised the question
>informally with Patrik and a few other members of SSAC.
>
>Let me know if you have thoughts or questions.
>--Wendy
>
>Dear Patrik:
>
>On behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, representing
>non-commercial Internet registrants and users in the GNSO, I write with
>some security questions about recent WHOIS proposals in the WHOIS
>Review
>Team Final Report and Recommendations and the draft Registrar
>Accreditation Agreement. Specifically, I am concerned that email or
>phone validation, whether pre- or post-resolution of a domain name,
>introduces new risks to the stability of that name. As SSAC is charged
>with advising the ICANN Community and Board on "matters relating to the
>security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation
>systems," [0] I believe its analysis would be valuable here. (I
>acknowledge that most of the concerns relate to the security and
>stability of individual domain names, but as they stem from a systemic
>weakness in the proposed domain registration system.)
>
>For example, if validation by returning an email were required before a
>newly-registered domain name is permitted to resolve, as requested by
>Law Enforcement [1], the potential registrant must find an alternate
>provider of secure email by which to receive the validation, or risk
>losing the name because he cannot do so.
>
>At any point when such validation is required -- annually, upon
>registration or renewal, or in response to a third-party complaint of
>"inaccuracy" -- that could provide an opportunity for an attacker to
>target a man-in-the-middle or phishing attack on the user's server or
>client, or a denial of service at the user's mailserver (known, from
>the
>email published in WHOIS). If a name is to be put on hold or suspended
>because of a registrant's failure to respond, these attacks provide a
>way to destabilize registrant's control of the domain and any further
>systems that depend upon it.
>
>Second, these communications train users in poor security practices. I
>note that current WHOIS reminder reports (WDPRS) are rarely, if ever,
>signed, so users are not currently primed or able to verify the
>authenticity of these communications. Encouraging them to provide
>sensitive personal and/or systems information in response to such
>emails
>harms them.
>
>Similar concerns apply to the "accuracy" recommendations of the WHOIS
>Review Team report [2]. I believe that a full threat analysis would be
>valuable and likely to identify additional risks to domain registrants
>and the registration system.
>
>Please feel free to get in touch if I can provide further information.
>We would be happy to work with you to refine the questions and
>analysis.
>
>--Wendy
>
>[0] http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/charter
>[1]
>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30344497/LE_Rec_Validation2012+%282%29.pdf
>[2]
>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf
>
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Mary.Wong  Thu Jun 28 16:34:56 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:34:56 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] DRAFT: Referral to SSAC on WHOIS impacts on
 domainsecurity and stability
Message-ID: <4FEBE6050200005B0009006E@smtp.law.unh.edu>

I agree. If Wendy is amenable and the PC agrees, we can even send it as a formal NCSG request. Either way, I support it.

Thanks, Wendy.

Cheers
Mary

Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.

"Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org> wrote:


Good statement
I recommend NCSG endorsement of this statement.

avri


Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

>Here's a proposed referral to SSAC requesting an analysis of security
>problems in WHOIS validation and data reminders.  I raised the question
>informally with Patrik and a few other members of SSAC.
>
>Let me know if you have thoughts or questions.
>--Wendy
>
>Dear Patrik:
>
>On behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, representing
>non-commercial Internet registrants and users in the GNSO, I write with
>some security questions about recent WHOIS proposals in the WHOIS
>Review
>Team Final Report and Recommendations and the draft Registrar
>Accreditation Agreement. Specifically, I am concerned that email or
>phone validation, whether pre- or post-resolution of a domain name,
>introduces new risks to the stability of that name. As SSAC is charged
>with advising the ICANN Community and Board on "matters relating to the
>security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation
>systems," [0] I believe its analysis would be valuable here. (I
>acknowledge that most of the concerns relate to the security and
>stability of individual domain names, but as they stem from a systemic
>weakness in the proposed domain registration system.)
>
>For example, if validation by returning an email were required before a
>newly-registered domain name is permitted to resolve, as requested by
>Law Enforcement [1], the potential registrant must find an alternate
>provider of secure email by which to receive the validation, or risk
>losing the name because he cannot do so.
>
>At any point when such validation is required -- annually, upon
>registration or renewal, or in response to a third-party complaint of
>"inaccuracy" -- that could provide an opportunity for an attacker to
>target a man-in-the-middle or phishing attack on the user's server or
>client, or a denial of service at the user's mailserver (known, from
>the
>email published in WHOIS). If a name is to be put on hold or suspended
>because of a registrant's failure to respond, these attacks provide a
>way to destabilize registrant's control of the domain and any further
>systems that depend upon it.
>
>Second, these communications train users in poor security practices. I
>note that current WHOIS reminder reports (WDPRS) are rarely, if ever,
>signed, so users are not currently primed or able to verify the
>authenticity of these communications. Encouraging them to provide
>sensitive personal and/or systems information in response to such
>emails
>harms them.
>
>Similar concerns apply to the "accuracy" recommendations of the WHOIS
>Review Team report [2]. I believe that a full threat analysis would be
>valuable and likely to identify additional risks to domain registrants
>and the registration system.
>
>Please feel free to get in touch if I can provide further information.
>We would be happy to work with you to refine the questions and
>analysis.
>
>--Wendy
>
>[0] http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/charter
>[1]
>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30344497/LE_Rec_Validation2012+%282%29.pdf
>[2]
>http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf
>
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From wendy  Thu Jun 28 14:14:23 2012
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:14:23 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] DRAFT: Referral to SSAC on WHOIS impacts on
 domainsecurity and stability
In-Reply-To: <4FEBE6050200005B0009006E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <4FEBE6050200005B0009006E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <4FEC3C8F.7040106@seltzer.com>

Thanks Mary and Avri,

It would be great to send from NCSG and invite the SSAC to engage in
dialogue with us to understand and define the problem.

--Wendy

On 06/28/2012 09:34 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> I agree. If Wendy is amenable and the PC agrees, we can even send it as a formal NCSG request. Either way, I support it.
> 
> Thanks, Wendy.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.
> 
> "Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Good statement
> I recommend NCSG endorsement of this statement.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> 
>> Here's a proposed referral to SSAC requesting an analysis of security
>> problems in WHOIS validation and data reminders.  I raised the question
>> informally with Patrik and a few other members of SSAC.
>>
>> Let me know if you have thoughts or questions.
>> --Wendy
>>
>> Dear Patrik:
>>
>> On behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, representing
>> non-commercial Internet registrants and users in the GNSO, I write with
>> some security questions about recent WHOIS proposals in the WHOIS
>> Review
>> Team Final Report and Recommendations and the draft Registrar
>> Accreditation Agreement. Specifically, I am concerned that email or
>> phone validation, whether pre- or post-resolution of a domain name,
>> introduces new risks to the stability of that name. As SSAC is charged
>> with advising the ICANN Community and Board on "matters relating to the
>> security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation
>> systems," [0] I believe its analysis would be valuable here. (I
>> acknowledge that most of the concerns relate to the security and
>> stability of individual domain names, but as they stem from a systemic
>> weakness in the proposed domain registration system.)
>>
>> For example, if validation by returning an email were required before a
>> newly-registered domain name is permitted to resolve, as requested by
>> Law Enforcement [1], the potential registrant must find an alternate
>> provider of secure email by which to receive the validation, or risk
>> losing the name because he cannot do so.
>>
>> At any point when such validation is required -- annually, upon
>> registration or renewal, or in response to a third-party complaint of
>> "inaccuracy" -- that could provide an opportunity for an attacker to
>> target a man-in-the-middle or phishing attack on the user's server or
>> client, or a denial of service at the user's mailserver (known, from
>> the
>> email published in WHOIS). If a name is to be put on hold or suspended
>> because of a registrant's failure to respond, these attacks provide a
>> way to destabilize registrant's control of the domain and any further
>> systems that depend upon it.
>>
>> Second, these communications train users in poor security practices. I
>> note that current WHOIS reminder reports (WDPRS) are rarely, if ever,
>> signed, so users are not currently primed or able to verify the
>> authenticity of these communications. Encouraging them to provide
>> sensitive personal and/or systems information in response to such
>> emails
>> harms them.
>>
>> Similar concerns apply to the "accuracy" recommendations of the WHOIS
>> Review Team report [2]. I believe that a full threat analysis would be
>> valuable and likely to identify additional risks to domain registrants
>> and the registration system.
>>
>> Please feel free to get in touch if I can provide further information.
>> We would be happy to work with you to refine the questions and
>> analysis.
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> [0] http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/charter
>> [1]
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30344497/LE_Rec_Validation2012+%282%29.pdf
>> [2]
>> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/



From william.drake  Thu Jun 28 16:51:22 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:51:22 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] DRAFT: Referral to SSAC on WHOIS impacts on
	domainsecurity and stability
In-Reply-To: <4FEBE6050200005B0009006E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <4FEBE6050200005B0009006E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <1B57CEDF-663C-4115-A300-BD9B1FB27528@uzh.ch>

+1


On Jun 28, 2012, at 3:34 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> I agree. If Wendy is amenable and the PC agrees, we can even send it as a formal NCSG request. Either way, I support it.
> 
> Thanks, Wendy.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors.
> 
> "Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Good statement
> I recommend NCSG endorsement of this statement.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> 
>> Here's a proposed referral to SSAC requesting an analysis of security
>> problems in WHOIS validation and data reminders.  I raised the question
>> informally with Patrik and a few other members of SSAC.
>> 
>> Let me know if you have thoughts or questions.
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> Dear Patrik:
>> 
>> On behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, representing
>> non-commercial Internet registrants and users in the GNSO, I write with
>> some security questions about recent WHOIS proposals in the WHOIS
>> Review
>> Team Final Report and Recommendations and the draft Registrar
>> Accreditation Agreement. Specifically, I am concerned that email or
>> phone validation, whether pre- or post-resolution of a domain name,
>> introduces new risks to the stability of that name. As SSAC is charged
>> with advising the ICANN Community and Board on "matters relating to the
>> security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation
>> systems," [0] I believe its analysis would be valuable here. (I
>> acknowledge that most of the concerns relate to the security and
>> stability of individual domain names, but as they stem from a systemic
>> weakness in the proposed domain registration system.)
>> 
>> For example, if validation by returning an email were required before a
>> newly-registered domain name is permitted to resolve, as requested by
>> Law Enforcement [1], the potential registrant must find an alternate
>> provider of secure email by which to receive the validation, or risk
>> losing the name because he cannot do so.
>> 
>> At any point when such validation is required -- annually, upon
>> registration or renewal, or in response to a third-party complaint of
>> "inaccuracy" -- that could provide an opportunity for an attacker to
>> target a man-in-the-middle or phishing attack on the user's server or
>> client, or a denial of service at the user's mailserver (known, from
>> the
>> email published in WHOIS). If a name is to be put on hold or suspended
>> because of a registrant's failure to respond, these attacks provide a
>> way to destabilize registrant's control of the domain and any further
>> systems that depend upon it.
>> 
>> Second, these communications train users in poor security practices. I
>> note that current WHOIS reminder reports (WDPRS) are rarely, if ever,
>> signed, so users are not currently primed or able to verify the
>> authenticity of these communications. Encouraging them to provide
>> sensitive personal and/or systems information in response to such
>> emails
>> harms them.
>> 
>> Similar concerns apply to the "accuracy" recommendations of the WHOIS
>> Review Team report [2]. I believe that a full threat analysis would be
>> valuable and likely to identify additional risks to domain registrants
>> and the registration system.
>> 
>> Please feel free to get in touch if I can provide further information.
>> We would be happy to work with you to refine the questions and
>> analysis.
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> [0] http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/charter
>> [1]
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/30344497/LE_Rec_Validation2012+%282%29.pdf
>> [2]
>> http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg